IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in providing basic amenities does not entitle allottee/transferee to hold back payment of instalments against plot price.

S.N. Aggarwal, President—This order will dispose of two appeals bearing First Appeal No.793 of 2005, Improvement Trust Sangrur v. Smt. Savita Kumari and First Appeal No.713 of 2005; Smt. Savita Kumari v. Improvement Trust, Sangrur and another, as the parties in both the appeals are the same and both the appeals are directed against the same impugned order dated 12.04.2005. The facts are taken from First Appeal No.793 of 2005 and the parties would be referred as per their status in this appeal.

2. The version of Savita Kumari respondent was that she was allotted plot No.47 measuring 250 square yards in 23.66 acres Captain Karam Singh Nagar Scheme, Sangrur by the appellants vide allotment letter dated 26.9.2001. She had made the payment of the plot price by way of instalments. The possession of the plot was not given to her nor the basic amenities like roads, water supply, sewerage, electric light were provided. The appellants had assured of separate electric transformer which was not yet installed. Hence, the complaint for refund of the interest amount, payment of interest on the principal amount, waiver of non-construction charges, compensation, interest and costs.

3. The appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that the plot was allotted to the respondent in the said scheme vide allotment letter dated 26.9.2001. It was pleaded that the respondent has not deposited the penal interest of the instalments deposited by her with delay. The present complaint has been filed only to harass the appellants. No assurance was given to the respondent for separate electric transformer. However, the basic amenities were already provided and the possession of the plot was also given to the respondent. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

4. Parties produced the affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.

5. The learned District Forum partly accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 12.4.2005 with costs/compensation amount of Rs.10,000 and the appellants were directed to refund the interest amount charged on the instalments. They were also directed to pay the interest on the principal amount deposited by the respondent upto 17.11.2002.

6. Hence, the appellants had filed this appeal (First Appeal No.793 of 2005) with the prayer that the impugned judgment dated 12.4.2005 be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Sukhpal Singh Kang and others v. Chandigarh Administration and another, AIR 1999 Punjab and Haryana 156.

7. On the other hand, the respondent also filed the appeal (First Appeal No.713 of 2005) for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission Delhi Development Authority v. Smt. Renu Gauba, 2003 (2) Judicial Reports Consumer 449, the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported as Smt. Leelawati v. Dr. Sukhmal Jain1 and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh reported as Om Parkash and other. v. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and another.2

8. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.

9. The admitted facts between the parties are that the respondent was allotted plot No.47 measuring 250 square yards in 23.66 acres Captain Karam Singh Nagar Scheme by the appellants vide allotment letter dated 26.9.2001. The allotment letter has been proved by the respondent as Ex.C2 and the chart of details of instalments which were payable by the respondent to the appellants has been proved as Ex.C1.

10. So far as the basic amenities are concerned, the appellants have proved documents Ex.R6 to Ex.R12 which clearly prove that the basic amenities were provided in that area.

11. The appellants have also proved document dated 18.8.2003 Ex.R13 sent to one Tarsem Lal by which the building plan submitted by him was approved by the appellants. Similar letters were a